Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 110:
Line 110: + + + + + +
→Women's influence on science: ... has been just slightly more than negligible
: I agree with your point and suggestion. Please go ahead and edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 13 July 2010 (EDT)
: I agree with your point and suggestion. Please go ahead and edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 13 July 2010 (EDT)
::On the other hand, don't go overboard and insinuate the idea that women have been contributing as much to science as men. Even if we'd like to start offering them [[equal opportunity]], the fact is that their contributions have been minuscule. The great exception is [[Madame Curie]], who justly gets a unit of radiation named after (the [[curie]]), plus one radioactive element ([[curium]]).
::I don't see anything in that sentence or any other here, implying that women are less capabable. The question is whether their significantly lower work about is due lack of opportunity (ie., sex descrimination) or lack of motivation (woundl'nt most women rather stay home and raise their kids?).
::It's difficult to discuss these matters, because the last time a prominent academic tried to do so, he was set up for a fall (see [[Lawrence Summers]]). If you want to help write honestly about women's influence on science, I'm happy to help. But please don't waste my time by trying to inject feminist propaganda. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)